mood_record

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation but give little else. The description adds that mood is stored separately from habits, which is useful context, but it does not specify whether each call appends a new entry or overwrites, nor does it mention any side effects or permissions. Given minimal annotation coverage, this is a moderate gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences with no waste: the first front-loads the core action and optional note, the second adds the distinction from habits and the pointer to journal_get. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: the rating range, optional note, and the workflow for reviewing entries. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description directly states the rating is on a 1–5 scale and that the note is 'optional short', which adds meaning beyond the bare schema (which has no descriptions). This compensates well for the 0% schema description coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear action ('Record') on a specific resource ('mood check-in') with a defined scale (1–5). It explicitly contrasts with habit tracking and points to journal_get for review, distinguishing it from sibling tools like gratitude_record and journal_get.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a direct pointer to journal_get for reviewing entries and naming trends, implying this tool is for capturing data rather than analysis. While it doesn't list explicit exclusions, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use this tool vs. alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.